Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 4, 2011, 5:37 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
folob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 855
Default Never drop your camera bag ...

The story is not that bad ... coming back from walking around Canmore (Canadian rockies), my dear camera bag dropped from the back of my friend Subaru Outback ... Directly on the driveway ... Which is in concrete. Since the bag rolled more than anything else .... I didn't check it right away.

However, I found out the day after ... That the camera lens caps on the E-30/50-200SWD was Inside the lens... Oops...

It turn out that the UV filter was basically destroyed, the lens itself seems to be in perfect shape and the lens cap ... was just bended!

Sometime you can be lucky!
__________________
Portfolio: http://agilephotography.deviantart.com/

Gears: OM-D E-M5 Mark II and E-M1 MK 1 with 14-150mm Mark II, 12-40mm f2.8, 15mm f8 cap lens, 60mm Macro, 75-300mm, Olympus Trinity -> 25/45/75mm f1.8. On the 4/3 side: 9-18mm and 50-200SWD with the MMF-2 4/3 adapter, FL-36R and FL-50. Also Rokinon mFT 7.5mm f3.5 Fisheye, Pentax 50mm f1.7 with K to m4/3 adapter, Olympus OM 200mm with OM to m4/3 adapter.
folob is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jul 4, 2011, 8:03 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
peru_shyam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 138
Default

Glad, your costly equipment is not ruined.
__________________
Peru_Shyam
MEL - AUS
peru_shyam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2011, 9:30 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
tkurkowski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 3,625
Default

So am I. Your heart must have stopped.

In most photo forums there's a standard disagreement over whether a protective filter on a lens is a good idea. I'm in the camp that it really is a good idea as long as you're using a good one that doesn't degrade the image. I've seen (and almost experienced) too many stories like yours. Thanks for sharing.

Ted
tkurkowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 4, 2011, 9:45 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
folob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 855
Default

The way I see it is ... Better safe than sorry. Replacing the UV filter will cost way less than fixing the 50-200 ...
__________________
Portfolio: http://agilephotography.deviantart.com/

Gears: OM-D E-M5 Mark II and E-M1 MK 1 with 14-150mm Mark II, 12-40mm f2.8, 15mm f8 cap lens, 60mm Macro, 75-300mm, Olympus Trinity -> 25/45/75mm f1.8. On the 4/3 side: 9-18mm and 50-200SWD with the MMF-2 4/3 adapter, FL-36R and FL-50. Also Rokinon mFT 7.5mm f3.5 Fisheye, Pentax 50mm f1.7 with K to m4/3 adapter, Olympus OM 200mm with OM to m4/3 adapter.
folob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 5, 2011, 9:00 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Steven R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 5,901
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by folob View Post
The way I see it is ... Better safe than sorry. Replacing the UV filter will cost way less than fixing the 50-200 ...
Dittos; that was my thought too..
Steven R is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:20 AM.